A state court ruling gives Democrats a chance to flip the Staten Island-based House seat held by Republicans.
President Trump prepares for US midterm elections, touts economic performance
President Donald Trump is campaigning for his party in the run-up to November’s midterm elections, and this year’s battle for control of Congress is at stake.
Fox – Seattle
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on March 2 agreed to a Republican request to intervene in a dispute over New York’s congressional district boundaries, blocking a ruling that would have given Democrats an opportunity to flip the seat.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented from the short, unsigned ruling.
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R.N.Y.) and others had asked the high court to allow New York City to use its existing congressional map in this fall’s elections, even though a state court had argued that the map illegally diluted the voting power of Black and Latino residents.
The emergency request was backed by the Trump administration, which has pushed red states to redraw their maps and opposed counterpunching blue states to improve Republicans’ chances of taking control of Congress.
The New York state dispute is over a congressional district that includes all of Staten Island and parts of southern Brooklyn. It is the only district in New York City held by Republicans.
In January, a judge agreed with a group of voters that black and Latino voters were not given enough opportunity to elect their preferred candidate, violating the state constitution.
The Trump administration told the Supreme Court that a New York state judge “mandated an act of open and unashamed racism by directing the state to replace districts typically won by candidates supported by white voters with districts typically won by candidates supported by black and Latino voters.”
New York Gov. Cathy Hochul and other Democratic officials said the lawmakers and other challengers took the “unusual” step of asking the Supreme Court to intervene before fully appealing the judge’s ruling through New York courts.
They said intervention would “seriously undermine the principles of federalism.”
The court’s decision was not explained.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply worded dissent, accusing the majority of departing from traditional practice of not intervening in state court cases and not interfering with state election laws before elections.
“Today the court said: except this,” she wrote. “If this court’s reach extends to non-final judgments in state courts, then every judgment from any court is just.”
Justice Samuel Alito, one of the court’s six conservatives, objected. He said her “accusations of double-sided practices” are unfounded and ignore the important issue of the constitutionality of the state court’s order.
Alito said the order was “blatantly discriminatory on the basis of race,” and the Supreme Court did not need to “wait until a series of cases, likely to run out of time, before reviewing the order.”
“It would provide a way to accomplish what a complete overhaul would not allow: the use of unconstitutional electoral districts in the November election and the selection of members of Congress whose eligibility to hold that office would be compromised,” Alito wrote.
In other recent rulings on redistricting, the high court said California could use a congressional map drawn to give Democrats an advantage in this year’s midterm elections, and Texas could use a congressional map drawn to help Republicans gain up to five additional seats in the House.
The debate is intense in the House of Representatives, where the margins are close and Democrats could wrest control of the chamber from Republicans by flipping three seats.
